Slashdot Mirror


Jawless Creature Had the World's Sharpest Teeth

ananyo writes "An extinct primitive marine vertebrate had the sharpest dental structures ever known — with tips just one-twentieth of the width of a human hair, but able to apply pressures that could compete easily with those from human jaws. The razor-sharp teeth belonged to conodonts, jawless vertebrates that evolved some 500 million years ago in the Precambrian eon and went extinct during the Triassic period, around 200 million years ago. The creatures roamed the planet for longer than any other vertebrate so far–– and despite their lack of jaws, they were the first creatures to evolve teeth (abstract)."

53 comments

  1. How accurate? by multiben · · Score: 1

    Is there any compensation that has to be applied to fossils which are over 200 million years old? Such as erosion etc?

    1. Re:How accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not as much as you would think. Conodonts are composed of calcium phosphate -- the same stuff as our teeth. It's fairly durable mineral. They are usually extracted from rocks in almost unaltered state. Conodonts do get broken and worn like any other sediment particle, so sometimes they're a bit beaten up, but often they are nearly intact despite being fairly fragile-looking structures. Sometimes their surfaces even show wear from the time when the animal was alive (i.e. tooth wear). Growth lines and other structures are visible internally.

      The rest of the animal -- the body -- is soft tissues, so that part rarely preserves and is flattened even when it is preserved, however, multiple specimens compressed in different orientations reveal the 3D structure. There are also slightly more robust structures around the eye sockets (sclerotic capsules).

    2. Re:How accurate? by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Is there any compensation that has to be applied to fossils which are over 200 million years old?

      No, I think their tooth patents are all expired...

    3. Re:How accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pshh no I bet they didn't think of that, good thing you pointed that out they would have never known.

    4. Re:How accurate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YEAH, You tell that anonymous person on the internet. I bet he's hurt.

      Really?

  2. Dentist insight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well there is a reason they were extinct. Teeth that sharp would 1. Either dull down quickly (depends on how long it lived) 2. Be fragile enough to break after catching prey.

    1. Re:Dentist insight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They 'were' extinct? As far as we can tell, they still are extinct. You assume that they 1) didn't replace teeth as they wore out and 2) used their teeth to catch prey. For a dentist, you are amazingly obtuse.

    2. Re:Dentist insight... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Well there is a reason they were extinct. Teeth that sharp would 1. Either dull down quickly (depends on how long it lived) 2. Be fragile enough to break after catching prey.

      Perhaps they were like rodent's teeth, constantly growing and softer on one side than the other, so that as it ate the tooth would sharpen itself and any breakages would be replaced.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Dentist insight... by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      Another dentist insight: dentists don't like to RTFA...

      But super-sharp teeth can cause problems. “If you have sharp teeth they are more likely to break,” says Donoghue. To overcome this, the animals seem to have been able to re-sharpen and repair worn teeth throughout their lives — a quality that other vertebrates have failed to evolve.

    4. Re:Dentist insight... by skegg · · Score: 2

      I don't think you could call their design flawed: they roamed this planet for about 1/3 billion years.
      From the summary:

      The creatures roamed the planet for longer than any other vertebrate so far.

    5. Re:Dentist insight... by DaveWick79 · · Score: 1

      Because you can tell from a fossil how long they were around. And you can tell that an animal looks like an eel by a set of fossilized teeth.

      I don't care how great of a scientist you are, you can't predict what an animal looked like from a set of teeth. Imagine the wild designs they would come up with for humans if all they had to go on was a tooth.

    6. Re:Dentist insight... by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Just a blast of Nitrous in the morning with your coffee...

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    7. Re:Dentist insight... by flirno · · Score: 1

      No prediction here.

      What are believed to be conodonts have been found in legerstatte deposit which can preserve impressions of softer tissues.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagerst%C3%A4tte

    8. Re:Dentist insight... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      Well there is a reason they were extinct. Teeth that sharp would 1. Either dull down quickly (depends on how long it lived) 2. Be fragile enough to break after catching prey.

      Some species developed an ability to re-grow tooth material. Quoth TFA:

      To overcome this, the animals seem to have been able to re-sharpen and repair worn teeth throughout their lives — a quality that other vertebrates have failed to evolve.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
  3. Here is the wikipedia article by buchner.johannes · · Score: 4, Informative

    of this eel-like creature... looks like we don't know much about them aside from their teeth?

    Meteorites suck. I mean blow.

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
    1. Re:Here is the wikipedia article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awww man there's no artist's conception of it on the page, I have to read and use my imagination now. I'm so depressed now...

    2. Re:Here is the wikipedia article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meteorites suck. I mean blow.

      And with the chompers these things had I'll bet they didn't do either.

    3. Re:Here is the wikipedia article by Randle_Revar · · Score: 2

      There is no particular reason to think the Triassic-Jurassic extinction was caused by an impact event.

    4. Re:Here is the wikipedia article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no particular reason to think the Triassic-Jurassic extinction was caused by an impact event.

      I guess that depends on your definition of particular, but there are reason to suspect (aka think) it happened. There's little evidence to support it, just as there's little evidence to support any alternative theory. It's quite an annoying little mystery, but calling people unreasonable for thinking about a theory isn't very nice.

    5. Re:Here is the wikipedia article by Randle_Revar · · Score: 1

      >There's little evidence to support it, just as there's little evidence to support any alternative theory

      Exactly.

      And I didn't say that OP was unreasonable.

  4. Freaky Beasties by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here are some speculative drawings of the creatures. Getting caught in a swarm of thrashing sharp dental structures would make a good horror film.

    1. Re:Freaky Beasties by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      "Heterochrony in cavusgnathid conodonts"

      I love titles that I cannot begin to pronounce, much less understand.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Freaky Beasties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here are some speculative drawings of the creatures. Getting caught in a swarm of thrashing sharp dental structures would make a good horror film.

      Yeah, but "Jawless" doesn't make for the most intimidating title.

    3. Re:Freaky Beasties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thankfully reconstructions of conodonts suggest most of them were only 10 or 20cm long. So, it would be a bit like being attacked by tiny, eel-like toothy leeches.

      But, hey, scale them up to a few metres long and they'd be damn scary.

    4. Re:Freaky Beasties by wiedzmin · · Score: 2

      I disagree. I would watch a movie that said Jawless in red bloody letters and had one of those things on the poster.

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
    5. Re:Freaky Beasties by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Being attacked by a hundred 20cm long leeches with very sharp teeth would be scary. Horror movie material even.

      --
    6. Re:Freaky Beasties by Sneeka2 · · Score: 1

      Getting caught in a swarm of thrashing sharp dental structures would make a good horror film.

      Yup, coming to a theater near you April 19.

      --
      Bitten Apples are still better than dirty Windows...
    7. Re:Freaky Beasties by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some close modern analogues for your viewing pleasure:
      Sea Lampreys
      Hagfish

  5. They still exist today by retroworks · · Score: 1

    Having evolved to chew through solid rock... They bored into the earth, and have evolved to make sustainable life energy in the heat below the earth's mantle... What's that noise?... Come closer to the campfire.

    --
    Gently reply
    1. Re:They still exist today by BenJCarter · · Score: 1

      Having evolved to chew through solid rock... They bored into the earth, and have evolved to make sustainable life energy in the heat below the earth's mantle... What's that noise?... Come closer to the campfire.

      If they are smart, they will evolve into goa'uld, and be preserved forever on Netflix...

      --
      For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. - Publius
  6. evolved some 500 million...extinct 200 million yea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, 300 million years is a pretty good run. *golf clap*

  7. Just when you thought... by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water ... JAWLESS!

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
  8. Jawless: Correlation or Causation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can one of the /. editors ask Ebert if his teeth have gotten any sharper?

  9. Hagfish by pauljlucas · · Score: 2

    Aren't these living creatures related?

    --
    If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    1. Re:Hagfish by Randle_Revar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Everything is related, it is a question of how closely. Seems some taxonomies put them near the hagfish class and the lamprey class, however a 2010 paper argues they are not Vertebrata at all, or even Craniata.

    2. Re:Hagfish by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      Aren't hagfish (technically Agnatha) related? Yes, but probably not too closely? They are about as old. But the fossil information on early vertebrates and similar critters is very sparse. It's hard to tell all that much about them. For example, there is a phylum of critters called Chaetognaths whose fossils somewhat resemble both fish and conodonts. They have eyes, fins, teeth. But unlike the conodonts, they survived until the present allowing biologists to determine that internally, the chaetognats don't look even remotely like fish. For example Chaetognaths have neither a respiratory system nor a circulatory system. Based only on fossils, the Chatognatha would probably incorrectly be thought to be closely related to fish and conodont.s The hypothecated resemblence of conodonts to fish may be equally imaginary.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    3. Re:Hagfish by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Fascinating. Thanks for that link.

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  10. Author doesn't understand pressure... by Karganeth · · Score: 0

    with tips just one-twentieth of the width of a human hair, but able to apply pressures that could compete easily with those from human jaws

    The size of the surface area has no bearing on the amount of pressure that can be applied because pressure is force per unit area.

    1. Re:Author doesn't understand pressure... by priceslasher · · Score: 1

      if pressure is force per unit area then it sounds like area and pressure are related - the smaller area for the same force will have higher pressure because force divided by a smaller value will continue to increase, right?

    2. Re:Author doesn't understand pressure... by voidphoenix · · Score: 1

      The size of the surface area has no bearing on the amount of pressure that can be applied because pressure is force per unit area.

      Try again. Try harder.

  11. And yet ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ""An extinct primitive marine vertebrate had the sharpest dental structures ever known "

    It still couldn't chew my wife's meat loaf.

  12. Re:Sounds like this creature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't get it

  13. Re:Sounds like this creature... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

    Because you don't even understand life itself! Life itself is completely unknown to one such as you.

    Wow! There are dark rumors about you circulating all over the grapevine. They were started by... Komen Bryce himself!

    The rumor's text? "Anonymous Coward is misign a few gigabit on his puter... bai2u... >_>"

    I know, I know. Your very soul has been shattered. You are a mere shell of what you once were. You're nothing. You can just turn to dust and die now!

  14. Useful fossils for biostratigraphic dating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Conodonts are very usefull for dating rocks, i use to work for the Maquarie University Center of Ecostratigraphy and Palaeobiology where we would dissolve tons (literally) of limestone with acetic acid to study these and other fossils.

    1. Re:Useful fossils for biostratigraphic dating by flirno · · Score: 1

      Yep. The oil industry use them all the time.

  15. Re:Sounds like this creature... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I still don't get it...

  16. Article = fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, the article has some major fuck-ups:
    "finite-element analysis — a method commonly applied to model the effects of physical forces on aeroplanes" ... and about everytwhere else FEA/FEM is the standard method for simulating anything where you have a mesh :D
    "To overcome this, the animals seem to have been able to re-sharpen and repair worn teeth throughout their lives — a quality that other vertebrates have failed to evolve" ... rodents do exactly the same, the way their teeth close makes them grind against each other, creating a continuously sharp edge (sorry if I described that badly, EN is not my native language)

  17. Roger Ebert by chinton · · Score: 1

    Is jawless and has pretty sharp (figurative) teeth.

  18. Obvious by robi5 · · Score: 1

    Given that it had no jawbone, it only makes sense that the teeth be sharp to still "get thru the point".

  19. Chicken or .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess we now know the answer to question of what came first, the teeth or the mouth?